United States v. Osborn
664 F. App'x 708
10th Cir.2016Background
- Joan Osborn was indicted for threatening to assault and murder a federal judge; the court ordered competency and sanity evaluations under 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241, 4242.
- Forensic psychologist Dr. Lesli Johnson diagnosed Osborn with delusional disorder, finding she understood the nature of proceedings but exhibited persecutory and grandiose delusions that could impair rational communication with counsel.
- The government presented Johnson as its sole witness at a competency hearing; defense counsel proffered that Osborn had been able to discuss legal issues with counsel and would avoid delusional testimony if asked.
- The district court held an ex parte conference with Osborn and her counsel about a request for new counsel and observed additional delusional statements during that meeting.
- The district court found Osborn incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence and committed her for up to four months for competency restoration, relying on Johnson’s opinion and the court’s own observations.
- Osborn appealed, arguing (1) the district court improperly placed the burden of proof on the government and (2) the incompetency finding was clearly erroneous because the court ignored defense proffers and relied on improper factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Osborn) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Allocation of burden of proof at competency hearing | Burden should be on defendant because consequences of incompetency are severe | Government: issue not raised below; review should be plain error; court assumed government's burden for analysis | Court declined to address the substantive claim because Osborn failed to preserve it; applied plain-error standard and found no plain-error argument presented |
| Whether Osborn was competent to assist counsel (ability to consult with reasonable rational understanding) | Osborn: defense counsel’s proffers show she could assist and court ignored them | Government: expert testimony and observed delusions show inability to assist despite counsel’s proffers | Court held competency finding was not clearly erroneous; persistent delusions made assisting counsel unlikely |
| Use of ex parte observations and counsel-request discussion | Osborn: court should not rely on ex parte meeting observations or her out-of-court comments | Government: court may consider any evidence of irrational behavior and its own observations | Court held it was appropriate to consider ex parte observations and the court’s own observations as part of the competency analysis |
| Consideration of speculative future habeas claims in analysis | Osborn: irrelevant to present competency | Government: raised as a concern but not central | Court agreed such speculation was irrelevant but concluded sufficient other evidence supported incompetency finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooper v. Oklahoma, 517 U.S. 348 (1996) (Dusky standard requires sufficient present ability to consult with counsel with rational understanding)
- Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (established competency-to-stand-trial standard)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (courts may consider irrational behavior, demeanor, and medical opinions in competency determinations)
- Lafferty v. Cook, 949 F.2d 1546 (10th Cir. 1991) (de novo review of legal application of competency test)
- United States v. DeShazer, 554 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2009) (clear-error review of factual competency findings)
- United States v. Boigegrain, 155 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 1998) (courts may rely on their own observations in competency determinations)
- Mackovich v. United States, 209 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2000) (standard for clear-error review and weight of counsel’s concerns)
- Richison v. Ernest Group, Inc., 634 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 2011) (plain-error preservation principles)